Re: [smartpowerdir] Pushing IPv6

[Vint Cerf <[e-mail]>]

Fred,

In your note you use the acronym IP twice. Is the first use Internet  
Protocol and the second Intellectual Property?

I will make the point in the SGIPGB that if IP is going to be used, it  
is foolish not to use IPv6 even if one needs to have a device in the  
home that speaks IPv6 to all the appliances and sensors and IPv4 (and  
IPv6) to the outside world for convenience in the near term.

vint


On Feb 14, 2010, at 3:25 AM, Fred Baker wrote:

> My understanding is that politics within the SGIP precluded them  
> from saying that. One thing we should do is get a better handle on  
> those politics; I suspect that the Enernex consultant is not  
> completely unbiased (he champions the idea that the grid has "points  
> of interoperability" aka gateways in it rather than general  
> communications interoperability), and there are probably others who  
> even if they are up for general use of IP would like to use the IP  
> that they have deployed.
>
> On Jan 29, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
>
>> ARIN has sent NIST a message saying that it is not possible to get  
>> enough IPv4 addresses to support SmartGrid.  However, the NIST  
>> document does not include a statement of preference for IPv6.  How  
>> can we make that happen
>>
>> Russ
>>
>
> http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF
>